oldbob wrote:The Red Queen is a place holder for the savage Buddhists who would destroy into smithereens anyone holding views not the same as theirs.

Jundo has explained that his purpose is not to change views but to merely attract potential students who think as he does to his group (treeleaf).

Hi,

I do not wish to "attract" anyone to our Sangha, but I do wish to provide a place to call home for anyone who might feel left out of Buddhism by what they might see as superstition, feudalism and discrimination, myth and miracles, fiction claimed as fact and the like which is perhaps endemic to much of Buddhism, despite all the wonder of this Path that shines forth when Buddhism is freed of such narrowness. Others who see Buddhism otherwise are free to so see it (we celebrate such fact and religious freedom!) and also free to find their home and friends on the Path elsewhere.

We do not charge a cent for our Sangha, and we do not chase anyone in the door nor run after anyone who finds it not right for them and chooses to leave. I like to make the presence of our Sangha known so that it may be found by those in whose heart it may resonate because they need such a place and such friends, but we never try to prosthelytize (look up the word if you do not know it, Shel). As with most Sangha, we are tiny on the scale of things ... and so we shall always be.

Why?

Because, when it comes to religion, one really cannot change the views of anyone whose heart is not ready and open to change. Nor should one try. One can only put a viewpoint or teaching out like a seed and, if the soil is ready and the seed is right, it will grow ... or not. If it does not grow in peoples' hearts, then it just will not or was not right.

In fact, one reason that folks will not entertain any religious, philosophical or political view that they are not open to is because of a well known psychological phenomenon called "Cognitive Dissonance" (if you have never heard of it, please look it up, Shel) and the corollary "principle of cognitive consistency".

The concept was introduced by the psychologist Leon Festinger (1919–89) in the late 1950s. He and later researchers showed that, when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists. ...

...

For example, Marian Keech (real name: Dorothy Martin) was the leader of a UFO cult in the 1950s. She claimed to get messages from extraterrestrials, known as The Guardians, through automatic writing. Like the Heaven's Gate folks forty years later, Keech and her followers, known as The Seekers or The Brotherhood of the Seven Rays, were waiting to be picked up by flying saucers. In Keech's prophecy, her group of eleven was to be saved just before the earth was to be destroyed by a massive flood on December 21, 1954. When it became evident that there would be no flood and the Guardians weren't stopping by to pick them up, Keech became elated. She said she'd just received a telepathic message from the Guardians saying that her group of believers had spread so much light with their unflagging faith that God had spared the world from the cataclysm (Levine 2003: 206).

More important, the Seekers didn't abandon her. Most became more devoted after the failed prophecy. (Only two left the cult when the world didn't end.) "Most disciples not only stayed but, having made that decision, were now even more convinced than before that Keech had been right all along....Being wrong turned them into true believers (ibid.)." Some people will go to bizarre lengths to avoid inconsistency between their cherished beliefs and the facts.

Thus, when it comes to religion or politics, it is often just a fools' errand to attempt to convince anyone, no matter the seeming facts and evidence otherwise. People (any of us, we are all victims of this in some way ... all of us) will believe what their heart tells them to believe no matter how baseless.

but I do wish to provide a place to call home for anyone who might feel left out of Buddhism by what they might see as superstition, feudalism and discrimination, myth and miracles, fiction claimed as fact and the like which is perhaps endemic to much of Buddhism, despite all the wonder of this Path that shines forth when Buddhism is freed of such narrowness.

Narrowness? You are the one narrowing the field to accord with Western materialistic views.

We do not charge a cent for our Sangha, and we do not chase anyone in the door nor run after anyone who finds it not right for them and chooses to leave.

All very sensible, thank goodness!

I like to make the presence of our Sangha known so that it may be found by those in whose heart it may resonate because they need such a place and such friends, but we never try to prosthelytize (look up the word if you do not know it, Shel). As with most Sangha, we are tiny on the scale of things ... and so we shall always be.

I'm sure you're right.

one really cannot change the views of anyone whose heart is not ready and open to change.

Agreed.

In fact, one reason that folks will not entertain any religious, philosophical or political view that they are not open to is because of a well known psychological phenomenon called "Cognitive Dissonance" (if you have never heard of it, please look it up, Shel) and the corollary "principle of cognitive consistency".

One out of many reasons... what's your point? and please don't tell me that you believe these phenomenon are not quite active in your group.

Thus, when it comes to religion or politics, it is often just a fools' errand to attempt to convince anyone, no matter the strength of evidence otherwise. People (any of us, we are all victims of this in some way ... all of us) will believe what their heart tells them to believe no matter how baseless.

On the contrary, it is only the heart that sees rightly *. I would not expect you to know that.

Reading some of the older locked posts, and the thread here, on a lazy Saturday morning...

I feel that it's important as practicing Buddhists, that some effort be made to be thoughtful, and skillful, and even diplomatic, in our correspondence with each other. There's some nasty stuff said from time to time about certain people, and I saw a recent criticism of Ajahn Brahm (heretical) that is just factually incorrect. Ajahn Brahm followed Vinaya, ordained some women as Bhikkhunis, and was bounced from the Thai Sangha because he wouldn't play ball the way they told him to play ball. The fact that Ajahn Brahm was following Vinaya was less important to the Thai sangha than doing what they were telling him to do (maintain the Thai tradition of subordinating women).

I've appreciated Jundo Cohen's well written responses, and the fact that he writes with a bit of flair and humor. Still, Jundo is wrong, time to time, and he was really wrong about Ajahn Brahm on this one. Ajahn Brahm is just one example of what's really right about Buddhism these days. Others, like HHDL, R. Joan Halifax, Thay, Matthieu Ricard, Taigen Leighton, Jack Kornfield, are shining example of how we can take Vinaya, the Suttas/Sutras, and integrate these well vetted and true practices that have survived nearly 3000 and bring them into the 21st century with skill and fidelity. These are but a few examples of excellent men and women in Buddhism today.

The danger with western Buddhism, is that is is becoming a wolf in sheep's clothing. We challenge each other on this and other forums as to what is Buddhism, and what is not. We need not speculate, but refer only to what the Buddha actually taught. We may also properly refer to the subsequent texts and teachings, and with a sense of wisdom and skill, discern what is the Tatgatha path and what is not.

BuddhaSoup wrote:I've appreciated Jundo Cohen's well written responses, and the fact that he writes with a bit of flair and humor. Still, Jundo is wrong, time to time, and he was really wrong about Ajahn Brahm on this one. Ajahn Brahm is just one example of what's really right about Buddhism these days. Others, like HHDL, R. Joan Halifax, Thay, Matthieu Ricard, Taigen Leighton, Jack Kornfield, are shining example of how we can take Vinaya, the Suttas/Sutras, and integrate these well vetted and true practices that have survived nearly 3000 and bring them into the 21st century with skill and fidelity. These are but a few examples of excellent men and women in Buddhism today.

I like Ajahm Brahm, too.

From the East Asian point of view, his ordination of bhikkhunis was perfectly legitimate. There are no bhikkhunis in Theravada anymore, so as a bhikkhu he exercised his right, which is supported by canonical sources, to ordain female renunciates. Now that the lineage has been revived, the bhikkhunis may ordain their own. The women now have the freedom to run their own sangha. This was a progressive and very much necessary move. To say, however, that what he did was heretical is to ignore all the canonical sources, both in Pali and elsewhere, that gave him sanction.

The danger with western Buddhism, is that is is becoming a wolf in sheep's clothing. We challenge each other on this and other forums as to what is Buddhism, and what is not. We need not speculate, but refer only to what the Buddha actually taught. We may also properly refer to the subsequent texts and teachings, and with a sense of wisdom and skill, discern what is the Tatgatha path and what is not.

We're a very small minority all things considered, but there is much room for growth. There are a lot of charlatans running around with mistaken views and ideas, often publishing their works in print. The publishers profit from this as well, which perpetuates the whole process. Now what constitutes "mistaken" is of course subjective, but rejection of the Buddha's fundamental teachings (karma, rebirth and so on) constitutes a mistaken path. However, a lot of people nowadays, due to their education and society, are naturally inclined away from said ideas for various reasons, if not specifically because of holding by default materialist world-views.

The issue of what constitutes Buddhism is problematic even in Asia. For example here in Taiwan there is a noted amount of disregard for Tibetan Buddhism among some of the Chinese sangha because of the consort practices and images of deities coupling. In Taipei there is an organization specifically dedicated to disparaging Lamas, with a big sign on the side of one building opposite a train station saying in English and Chinese: "Tibetan Lamas are not Buddhist monks!"

At the end of the day we all are entitled to our opinions. Whatever the end result of our collective opinions and actions is remains to be seen. I imagine in a century a lot of the ideas put forth by people like Jundo or Batchelor will be largely forgotten because in sustained economic and political hardship their ideas will be both unsatisfying and unrealistic. We are facing climate change, peak oil, perpetual economic contraction and a lot of other problems that consequently follow said predicaments, which will render "spirituality sans religion" largely unsatisfying to people who are suffering and having to deal with continual grief, which traditional religion can address (it might be a palliative opiate, but it works). In such circumstances outright rejection, or even mild dismissal, of rebirth, merit and all the rituals that accompany Buddhist traditions is not going to find much support. However, traditions like those of Ajahn Brahm will probably flourish because they provide both a means to address suffering AND some kind of hope that despite all the problems we face, there is always a future life to look forward to.

BuddhaSoup wrote:I've appreciated Jundo Cohen's well written responses, and the fact that he writes with a bit of flair and humor. Still, Jundo is wrong, time to time, and he was really wrong about Ajahn Brahm on this one. Ajahn Brahm is just one example of what's really right about Buddhism these days. Others, like HHDL, R. Joan Halifax, Thay, Matthieu Ricard, Taigen Leighton, Jack Kornfield, are shining example of how we can take Vinaya, the Suttas/Sutras, and integrate these well vetted and true practices that have survived nearly 3000 and bring them into the 21st century with skill and fidelity. These are but a few examples of excellent men and women in Buddhism today.

I like Ajahm Brahm, too.

From the East Asian point of view, his ordination of bhikkhunis was perfectly legitimate. There are no bhikkhunis in Theravada anymore, so as a bhikkhu he exercised his right, which is supported by canonical sources, to ordain female renunciates. Now that the lineage has been revived, the bhikkhunis may ordain their own. The women now have the freedom to run their own sangha. This was a progressive and very much necessary move. To say, however, that what he did was heretical is to ignore all the canonical sources, both in Pali and elsewhere, that gave him sanction.

The danger with western Buddhism, is that is is becoming a wolf in sheep's clothing. We challenge each other on this and other forums as to what is Buddhism, and what is not. We need not speculate, but refer only to what the Buddha actually taught. We may also properly refer to the subsequent texts and teachings, and with a sense of wisdom and skill, discern what is the Tatgatha path and what is not.

We're a very small minority all things considered, but there is much room for growth. There are a lot of charlatans running around with mistaken views and ideas, often publishing their works in print. The publishers profit from this as well, which perpetuates the whole process. Now what constitutes "mistaken" is of course subjective, but rejection of the Buddha's fundamental teachings (karma, rebirth and so on) constitutes a mistaken path. However, a lot of people nowadays, due to their education and society, are naturally inclined away from said ideas for various reasons, if not specifically because of holding by default materialist world-views.

The issue of what constitutes Buddhism is problematic even in Asia. For example here in Taiwan there is a noted amount of disregard for Tibetan Buddhism among some of the Chinese sangha because of the consort practices and images of deities coupling. In Taipei there is an organization specifically dedicated to disparaging Lamas, with a big sign on the side of one building opposite a train station saying in English and Chinese: "Tibetan Lamas are not Buddhist monks!"

At the end of the day we all are entitled to our opinions. Whatever the end result of our collective opinions and actions is remains to be seen. I imagine in a century a lot of the ideas put forth by people like Jundo or Batchelor will be largely forgotten because in sustained economic and political hardship their ideas will be both unsatisfying and unrealistic. We are facing climate change, peak oil, perpetual economic contraction and a lot of other problems that consequently follow said predicaments, which will render "spirituality sans religion" largely unsatisfying to people who are suffering and having to deal with continual grief, which traditional religion can address (it might be a palliative opiate, but it works). In such circumstances outright rejection, or even mild dismissal, of rebirth, merit and all the rituals that accompany Buddhist traditions is not going to find much support. However, traditions like those of Ajahn Brahm will probably flourish because they provide both a means to address suffering AND some kind of hope that despite all the problems we face, there is always a future life to look forward to.

BuddhaSoup wrote:I've appreciated Jundo Cohen's well written responses, and the fact that he writes with a bit of flair and humor. Still, Jundo is wrong, time to time, and he was really wrong about Ajahn Brahm on this one. Ajahn Brahm is just one example of what's really right about Buddhism these days. Others, like HHDL, R. Joan Halifax, Thay, Matthieu Ricard, Taigen Leighton, Jack Kornfield, are shining example of how we can take Vinaya, the Suttas/Sutras, and integrate these well vetted and true practices that have survived nearly 3000 and bring them into the 21st century with skill and fidelity. These are but a few examples of excellent men and women in Buddhism today.

I like Ajahm Brahm, too.

From the East Asian point of view, his ordination of bhikkhunis was perfectly legitimate. There are no bhikkhunis in Theravada anymore, so as a bhikkhu he exercised his right, which is supported by canonical sources, to ordain female renunciates. Now that the lineage has been revived, the bhikkhunis may ordain their own. The women now have the freedom to run their own sangha. This was a progressive and very much necessary move. To say, however, that what he did was heretical is to ignore all the canonical sources, both in Pali and elsewhere, that gave him sanction.

The danger with western Buddhism, is that is is becoming a wolf in sheep's clothing. We challenge each other on this and other forums as to what is Buddhism, and what is not. We need not speculate, but refer only to what the Buddha actually taught. We may also properly refer to the subsequent texts and teachings, and with a sense of wisdom and skill, discern what is the Tatgatha path and what is not.

We're a very small minority all things considered, but there is much room for growth. There are a lot of charlatans running around with mistaken views and ideas, often publishing their works in print. The publishers profit from this as well, which perpetuates the whole process. Now what constitutes "mistaken" is of course subjective, but rejection of the Buddha's fundamental teachings (karma, rebirth and so on) constitutes a mistaken path. However, a lot of people nowadays, due to their education and society, are naturally inclined away from said ideas for various reasons, if not specifically because of holding by default materialist world-views.

The issue of what constitutes Buddhism is problematic even in Asia. For example here in Taiwan there is a noted amount of disregard for Tibetan Buddhism among some of the Chinese sangha because of the consort practices and images of deities coupling. In Taipei there is an organization specifically dedicated to disparaging Lamas, with a big sign on the side of one building opposite a train station saying in English and Chinese: "Tibetan Lamas are not Buddhist monks!"

At the end of the day we all are entitled to our opinions. Whatever the end result of our collective opinions and actions is remains to be seen. I imagine in a century a lot of the ideas put forth by people like Jundo or Batchelor will be largely forgotten because in sustained economic and political hardship their ideas will be both unsatisfying and unrealistic. We are facing climate change, peak oil, perpetual economic contraction and a lot of other problems that consequently follow said predicaments, which will render "spirituality sans religion" largely unsatisfying to people who are suffering and having to deal with continual grief, which traditional religion can address (it might be a palliative opiate, but it works). In such circumstances outright rejection, or even mild dismissal, of rebirth, merit and all the rituals that accompany Buddhist traditions is not going to find much support. However, traditions like those of Ajahn Brahm will probably flourish because they provide both a means to address suffering AND some kind of hope that despite all the problems we face, there is always a future life to look forward to.

I could or should have added to my short list of modern Buddhist teachers Bhikkhu Bodhi, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Scholars may agree or disagree with their translations, but I find it comforting and valuable that these bhikkhus are keeping the flame alive of the original teachings. We live in a very interesting time to study dhamma/dharma, and having scholars alive to teach today is very fortunate.

I mentioned Taigen Leighton, who is a Dogen scholar. Now, Dogen was not Gautama Buddha, but my limited study of Dogen via Taigen suggests that this Japanese scholar/monk was quite faithful to the sutras and the vinaya, and carved out for his young monks a path of discipline and awakening that I have found to be very interesting and compelling.

We have other modern teachers such as Paul Haller, and Sharon Salzberg, and Joseph Goldstein, who seem to be very strong scholars as well as having a very ethical approach to Buddhist teaching and practice.

I've missed some, of course.

My point is that we're lucky, in 2012, to have such strong scholarship and solid teachers in our midst, who seem well grounded in the Buddhadharma, yet quite adept at helping the rest of us navigate the waters of the modern world with the Buddha Way as a guide.

BuddhaSoup wrote:HHDL, R. Joan Halifax, Thay, Matthieu Ricard, Taigen Leighton, Jack Kornfield, are shining example of how we can take Vinaya, the Suttas/Sutras, and integrate these well vetted and true practices that have survived nearly 3000 and bring them into the 21st century with skill and fidelity. These are but a few examples of excellent men and women in Buddhism today.

...

My point is that we're lucky, in 2012, to have such strong scholarship and solid teachers in our midst, who seem well grounded in the Buddhadharma, yet quite adept at helping the rest of us navigate the waters of the modern world with the Buddha Way as a guide.

BuddhaSoup wrote:My point is that we're lucky, in 2012, to have such strong scholarship and solid teachers in our midst, who seem well grounded in the Buddhadharma, yet quite adept at helping the rest of us navigate the waters of the modern world with the Buddha Way as a guide.

In the English speaking world there are a lot of solid teachers who go under the radar, without having much publicity. You won't see them in Tricycle Magazine, or their names on the covers of books being sold at Barnes and Noble.

Although one famous Anglophone teacher I really like is Robert Thurman. He has a good sense of humour and knows his material well.

BuddhaSoup wrote:My point is that we're lucky, in 2012, to have such strong scholarship and solid teachers in our midst, who seem well grounded in the Buddhadharma, yet quite adept at helping the rest of us navigate the waters of the modern world with the Buddha Way as a guide.

In the English speaking world there are a lot of solid teachers who go under the radar, without having much publicity. You won't see them in Tricycle Magazine, or their names on the covers of books being sold at Barnes and Noble.

Although one famous Anglophone teacher I really like is Robert Thurman. He has a good sense of humour and knows his material well.

Huseng, yes, Robert Thurman is absolutely one for the list. A strong writer, long time supporter of Tibet and HHDL, and a solid supporter of engaged practice with his support of the Occupy movement and other causes. I regret not having him on my original list, but as I said, I was going to miss some of the obvious leaders here....recognizing that, my hope was, that others would weigh in, and you came in with a clear 5 star modern leader/teacher.

Of course there were original teachings, but like the metaphor goes: a fire kept burning through the course of a day and a night is not the same fire that existed at the beginning, but it is a continuation of the original fire.

There does seem to be a consensus view that the original teachings of Gautama were kept within the oral tradition of his monks, who met after his death to organize the teachings. Over time, these teachings were written down; how accurately in anyone's best estimate, but the scholarship suggests that there is a uniform agreement that the Buddha's teachings on Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, among others, survived fairly intact.

There does seem to be a consensus view that the original teachings of Gautama were kept within the oral tradition of his monks, who met after his death to organize the teachings. Over time, these teachings were written down; how accurately in anyone's best estimate, but the scholarship suggests that there is a uniform agreement that the Buddha's teachings on Four Noble Truths, Dependent Origination, among others, survived fairly intact.

Even the Buddha acknowledges that he is not the first Buddha, hence his teachings are not "the original".

This notion that Gotama Buddha's teachings in the Nikayas/Agamasare the "originals" is purely a scholastic aritifice and should not be believed.

Malcolm wrote:Even the Buddha acknowledges that he is not the first Buddha, hence his teachings are not "the original".

This notion that Gotama Buddha's teachings in the Nikayas/Agamasare the "originals" is purely a scholastic aritifice and should not be believed.

It's one thing to say that the teachings are not original and another thing to say that originally there were no teachings. Your statement is quite correct, the Buddha likened his teachings as rediscovering a long lost path. I think though that BuddhaSoup was referring to the second interpretation.

I'm not sure which interpretation I was referring to. What I understand is that Gautama Buddha specifically rejected some of the common Sramanic and Brahmanic beliefs and teachings of his time, and indeed developed as a product if his awakening the Middle Way teachings, including the Four Noble Truths, karma as he defined it as causes and conditions, as well as the aforementioned dependent origination, among many other teachings. After his passing, the First Council made some effort to assign the oral teachings to the memories of the monks gathered at that time. Over time, these teachings were recorded; how well is anyone's estimate, but again, there is a general sense that the breadth of Gautama's profound and original teachings have been more or less captured in these early Nikayas.

Like Will Rogers once said, "All I know is what I read in the papers'" so, in one sense I'm saying that all that I know of this subject is what I have read from trusted scholars who have taken a lifetime of scholarship to develop these concepts. I'm not smart enough nor learned enough to have an independent opinion on the subject. There has been enough digging, and study and comparison, and cross referencing of ancient texts (Pali, Sanskrit, Devanagari, Chinese...) to suggest a uniformity of the original teachings, at least beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even if only 70-90 percent correct, the translations of what the Buddha taught, as best as we can, or scholars like Ven. Walpola Rahula could, determine, is amazing, compelling, and life transforming.

A small point, but one that needs to be made: Sanskrit is a language, whereas Devanagari is a writing system. Sanskrit is often written in the Devanagari script, but can be written using other scripts as well. Conversely, Devanagari is also used to write Hindi and a variety of other Indian languages.

A small point, but one that needs to be made: Sanskrit is a language, whereas Devanagari is a writing system. Sanskrit is often written in the Devanagari script, but can be written using other scripts as well. Conversely, Devanagari is also used to write Hindi and a variety of other Indian languages.

Excellent! One reason why I like to post here is that I do learn something new almost every week. Dharma Goat, I'll try not to make this mistake again. In fact, this factoid is now solidly in my head, and I'm glad to know this about what I thought was an ancient language, but as you have corrected, is a writing system.

Now if only someone could tell me that, with no-self/anatta/anatman in mind, what survives death to occasion rebirth? A consciousness? A cosmic bit of dust? A semi-soul? A wisp of smoke that follows an extinguished candle?

BuddhaSoup wrote:Now if only someone could tell me that, with no-self/anatta/anatman in mind, what survives death to occasion rebirth? A consciousness? A cosmic bit of dust? A semi-soul? A wisp of smoke that follows an extinguished candle?